Yes, that is an undeniable fact. Of course, players make the money for owners, but i dont think theyre worth millions and millions of dollars. owners are subjected to operating costs, marketing, maintenance expenses, etc etc. players take their paychecks and spend it. sure they are risking their bodies, but how many players in the past decade have ever gotten career threatening injuries? and who pays for all the medical care that they receive when they do get injured, on top of the millions and millions of money they receive while getting treatment? yes, these owners sit on chairs all day, but theyre the ones who pay the 200+ workers who makes sure that these players are in condition, eat right, sleep in a good hotel, get to games on time. im not saying dont pay the players, pay them what is enough and considerable.

i guess if you really think about it though, its also the owners faults anyways, everytime they start a bidding war on these players, they run themselves out of business.

All good points. I suppose this is why it's so hard to come to an agreement, eh? haha These are the conversations the Players and Owners must be having as well. haha

Think about this for a second: why aren't WNBA players paid millions of dollars? After all, they put a bouncy thing inside an iron thing, too. Why are supermodels paid millions to stand around and smile? My 200 pound assistant can stand around and smile, too. Why is Will Smith paid $20mm for playing dress up? My twins play dress up at home and no one pays them $20mm.

But we know there isn't. Look at the Holy Grail of pro sports leagues: the NFL. The only way a lot of markets stay afloat is with massive government subsidies for stadiums, along with coerced revenue sharing and a massive national tv deal. Even then, how many NFL teams are in trouble? There is a reason the NFL owners are engaged in a lockout.

Want a hard cap? Well, it sure has worked wonders for the NHL. Look at how successful Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, Florida, Tampa, Dallas, have been.

The reality is taht there are always going to be bad teams in bad markets. Bringing everyone down so that the lowest common denominators can survive won't work.

So you you think it's great that some big market teams can spend all they want and make all the mistakes they want because they have money to burn? The knicks were one of the top spending teams for years and were awful and now they're relevant again, not because they were stockpiling picks but they bought players.

Would Amare consider signing with Sacramento? Of course not. Who would?

Of course there's always gonna be badly run teams. But when one team can spend $90 mil and another can spend $50...I mean that ain't even fair. All that is is a competition of whose owner is richer.

Will Smith makes $20M a movie, because he makes the Producers of that movie $500M.

Supermodels get paid, because they make Millions of Dollars for Designers.

It is fair that they get paid so much money, because we are the ones that are paying them basically.
We chose who is popular, who is in demand, who is .. everything.

If Millions of Fans didn't pay money to go see Will Smith, then Will Smith doesn't make any more movies. Period.

Just like if the Fans didn't pay Millions of Dollars to go Watch Basketball, then the players don't have a case, in which to ask for that much money.

Like i said, this is what society dictates, and it sucks. I think its just ludicrous that somebody who spends 9-10months moving around pretending he's something that he's not and getting paid $20 mil for it. i mean movies dont even contribute anything to society.

i think the difference is, with movies, actors demand. in the NBA, players are given offers, and its up to them to accept or not. so if they make the ceiling of what can be offered lower but adequate and considerable, then id be happy.

i guess what im trying to say is lower the max salary allowed, and enforce a hard cap so that players wont go to teams who have lots of money to spend to demand more money. every team should only be allowed a certain number to spend, period.

Will Smith makes $20M a movie, because he makes the Producers of that movie $500M.

Supermodels get paid, because they make Millions of Dollars for Designers.

It is fair that they get paid so much money, because we are the ones that are paying them basically.
We chose who is popular, who is in demand, who is .. everything.

If Millions of Fans didn't pay money to go see Will Smith, then Will Smith doesn't make any more movies. Period.

Just like if the Fans didn't pay Millions of Dollars to go Watch Basketball, then the players don't have a case, in which to ask for that much money.

If Will Smith is asking $20M/movie but the market no longer can support huge blockbusters which can allow the Producers to still turn profits while paying their actors that kind of coin then suddenly Will Smith is either making less than $20M/movie or Will Smith isn't making movies.

We are going to still watch the games no matter if LeBron James or Kobe Bryant exists or not. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant are given the privilege to be able to make hundreds of millions on the owner's platform. Without that platform they're playing in Europe for a fraction of their current salaries, selling cars or something else that's not going to allow them live their lavish lives.

I've had enough of the Lakers and Celtics and other teams who don't care if they go over salary cap and pay a huge luxury tax every year, just so they can have a stacked team and buy their way into the playoffs. I want to see a more competitive league. I don't want the same teams in the playoffs ever year or only a handful of teams able to win the championship.

So if this means a hard cap or non-guaranteed contracts or whatever, I'm more than happy to go without the NBA for a while for needed changes to happen. There is always the NFL and college basketball/football for my sports fix. I just hope they do it right this time and make the NBA the envy of the sports world.

Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.

We are going to still watch the games no matter if LeBron James or Kobe Bryant exists or not. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant are given the privilege to be able to make hundreds of millions on the owner's platform. Without that platform they're playing in Europe for a fraction of their current salaries, selling cars or something else that's not going to allow them live their lavish lives.

No Salary Cap in most leagues in Europe. They could offer Lebron $40M a season. So not really a fraction of their Salary.

But you're right, but at the time you think Jack Nicholson is paying the same money for floor seats to watch some Tier-2 athletes run the floor? These guys are the best in the world, and are rightfully paid like it. These guys make the Networks HUNDREDS of millions of Dollars. They make the Owners HUNDRED of millions of dollars. Without the best of the best, then the fans don't pay the money they do and the advertisers don't pay the money they do.

Look at the NBDL. Those guys are good. But not the BEST, and they are paid accordingly. I know I wouldn't pay the same money to go to an NBDL level game.

I'm not trying to say that they SHOULD be paid as much as they are. I think a 50-50 split of revenues would be fair.
But I also don't believe what the Stern says about the state of the League and how Dire everything is.

ADD

A person close to James said Tuesday that the Cavaliers' superstar would strongly consider playing overseas if he was offered a salary of "around $50 million a year."

While $50 million a year seems outlandish, it is within the realm of possibility, considering the reported $250 million contract David Beckham received two years ago to join Major League Soccer, the $33 million Michael Jordan was paid by the Chicago Bulls for the 1997-98 season, the strength of the euro in comparison to the dollar, and the fact that European clubs are not bound by a salary cap.

We are going to still watch the games no matter if LeBron James or Kobe Bryant exists or not. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant are given the privilege to be able to make hundreds of millions on the owner's platform. Without that platform they're playing in Europe for a fraction of their current salaries, selling cars or something else that's not going to allow them live their lavish lives.

No, we won't be watching. If that were the case, the WNBA would be successful. NBA players get paid enourmous sums of money because they are ~500 in the world of ~6 billion that can do what they do. They are unique. They are freaks. They are awesome and amazing. They do things no other human being can do.

Again, over and over again I repeat, there is no other business in the world that treats its professionals like pro sports athletes in North America. No right-thinking person would support it in any other arena and no one would accept it of their own job or career. Again, the market will bear the salary costs. The owners claim that they need $800mm more doesn't make any sense when you consider league revenues and the costs required to generate those revenues (let's say $6 to 1 as a rule).

You are all supporting these changes based on the erroneous belief they will effect parity. They won't. The NHL is a perfect example but there are abstract macro-economic reasons why it won't matter. Just be prepared for the disappointment that unintended consequences bring...

No Salary Cap in most leagues in Europe. They could offer Lebron $40M a season. So not really a fraction of their Salary.

But you're right, but at the time you think Jack Nicholson is paying the same money for floor seats to watch some Tier-2 athletes run the floor? These guys are the best in the world, and are rightfully paid like it. These guys make the Networks HUNDREDS of millions of Dollars. They make the Owners HUNDRED of millions of dollars. Without the best of the best, then the fans don't pay the money they do and the advertisers don't pay the money they do.

Look at the NBDL. Those guys are good. But not the BEST, and they are paid accordingly. I know I wouldn't pay the same money to go to an NBDL level game.

I'm not trying to say that they SHOULD be paid as much as they are. I think a 50-50 split of revenues would be fair.
But I also don't believe what the Stern says about the state of the League and how Dire everything is.

While it's true that they could possibly offer Lebron $40 mil per, that's just one player. They've also been having difficulty actually paying the NBAers they've attracted the quite average salaries they were offered, let alone a whole league of NBAers. The top few might secure comparable salaries abroad, but I can assure you that the vast majority will not. They will lose out if they threaten to seek employment elsewhere.

Regarding NBDL, it's not purely due to talent level that they are paid the wages they earn. More important is market share. If all the NBA players suddenly retired and the NBA collapsed (and assuming the NBDL is able to capitalize logistically), the NBDL will start to bring in more money. It's all supply and demand.

IMO, 50-50 is already too much for the players. If you think of it as a business arrangement, the teams would be taking 100% of the risk and investing 100% of the capital in order to make 50% of the gross income. I don't know what the gross expenditures are, but it's more than 0 and that's what the players are risking/investing. No matter if the team is pulling in a loss, the players keep making their money.

Right, so break it down for me. You can start off with how much each team spends on their arena mortgage payments, arena maintenance, utilities, property taxes and staff wages.

Initially, i wasnt sure what i was saying was legit, but now that Apollo is saying the exact same thing, it makes me proud, hehehe. If you really think about it, players only support their families and themselves. Business managers really dont get paid by athletes if you truly break it down. Business managers haggle salaries with the consideration that they will be paid as well so technically, the owners pay for their salaries as well.

i dont think the players will be shortchanged incase the max salary is reduced or if a hard cap is put in place. mind you, these players get endorsements which allow them to rake in even more millions.

While it's true that they could possibly offer Lebron $40 mil per, that's just one player. They've also been having difficulty actually paying the NBAers they've attracted the quite average salaries they were offered, let alone a whole league of NBAers. The top few might secure comparable salaries abroad, but I can assure you that the vast majority will not. They will lose out if they threaten to seek employment elsewhere.

No they don't have salary caps but those teams can't afford to spend the kind of money the NBA does. Yeah, a team was trying to get LeBron or Kobe to head overseas and offering a gigantic yearly sum but first off, their contracts over there are not guaranteed. Isn't that a large part of why the players don't like the hard cap idea, because it means that Eddy Curry can't get paid $10M/yr to sit on the sideline getting fat and not doing a damn thing to earn his money and caring less about it? Also, Josh Childress can go over there by himself and make around $10M/yr but there's a difference between one player going over there and 450 plus a potentially large crew from the NCAA and hot prospects coming out of high school.

Quixotic wrote:

Haha, I just noticed the title of your post. Big LOL. I was also scratching my head and wondering why $6 to 1 was a rule when I read Slaw's post.

More details about the rejected offer

implementation of a hard salary cap at a figure lower than the league's current cap, but not until the 2013-14 season, according to sources familiar with the offer

easing in a more restrictive financial landscape over a three-season cycle as opposed to trying to impose a hard salary ceiling with immediate effect next season.

the next two seasons would employ a salary-cap system with luxury-tax penalties not unlike the system currently in place.

immediate rollbacks of 15 percent, 20 percent or 25 percent to current contracts depending on salary levels, as part of the league's oft-stated desire to reduce payroll by roughly $800 million leaguewide on an annual basis.

lower salaries for rookies than they currently make based off the league's rookie scale.

new rules that make it hugely advantageous for marquee players to stay with the teams that draft them. The new rules would grant teams the ability to offer even more years and dollars to a designated "star" player than current rules allow

under the NBA's proposal, would not be able to unilaterally "tag" a player to be their designated star, as NFL teams can by using their "franchise tag" to prevent one chosen player from becoming a free agent. Under the NBA's proposal rejected by the union last week, teams would only be able to designate one player for preferential contract treatment if the player agreed to it.

the ability for each team to shed one contract outright before next season through a one-time amnesty provision that wipes that contract off a team's books -- even though the player must still be paid -- reminiscent of a similar provision in the summer of 2005.

About the Will Smith analogy, the actors in those movies, I assume, make less than 57% of the gross revenue that the film makes, so what is an appropriate financial slice for the actors, or in this case the players. Is 57% too much or too little?